pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: pmmgr memory hog

To: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: pmmgr memory hog
From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 18:23:42 -0500
Cc: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1790828395.8575235.1423177464966.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <23273355.372.1423022546978.JavaMail.rmckee@wsrmckee> <1838902881.6952157.1423024805273.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <y0md25p63ji.fsf@xxxxxxxx> <1683339037.8571387.1423176489834.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <20150205225822.GA28568@xxxxxxxxxx> <1790828395.8575235.1423177464966.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i
Hi -

> > OK, that suggests they may be unable / unwilling to help debug
> > further.  Nevertheless, please ask the reporter to forward his/her
> > /var/log/pcp/pmmgr/pmmgr.log* files.
> 
> I asked (yep, with full path), but none were forthcoming / found.

Too bad.

> What's our level of confidence re valgrind vs pmmgr? - could make
> a good pmmgr QA test.

Inserting a "valgrind" into qa/666:75 generates all-clean results.
The larger memory consumption comes in when scanning network with the
probe/avahi discoveries, which that test case doesn't do (since it's
necessarily site-specific).  I've run valgrind on pmmgr in the past
against a larger network-scanny installation, and again no complaints.
Am rerunning now.

- FChE

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>